Saw one of those at a local gun show today. 20ga. PG/SST/BT/VR. Date code says 1962. All the Richland imports I can recall seeing have been pretty basic. This one was downright fancy. Full coverage engraving on coin-finished sidelocks (not hand-detachable). Checkering I'd guess at maybe 28 lpi. Nice condition. Tagged at $1400. Had most of the features American scattergunners were thought to prefer back then . . . which end up probably making it a harder sell today. From what I can find on Union Armera, looks most like the Model 213 imported under the Dakin name.

I visited there showroom in lower MI in the 60's. They had a wild assortment of shotguns and quality standards were very different from model to model. I think I bought my first chamber reamer there, it worked fine and the price was super.

bill

This is from Larry's response to me in his post #437228 earlier today.




Hey Larry, Woof woof! How about showing us where I ever once held up either my opinions or my observations as good science. Sorry for pissing on your thread, but when you go around telling lies about me, I feel this need to clear the air.

That gun was interesting in the fact the ejector kickers were gold washed. With an English stock, splinter fore end , and a flat rib, with a better known name it would have been a $10.000 plus gun.

Still can't find the right thread, Keith? How can a guy talk about debunking "junk science" when he demonstrates an inability to find his posterior with both hands?

95% of the Dakin imported Spanish doubles had so much soft metal that after just a few flats of field loads the action innards were so mushroomed and twisted around it was really not worth fixin.....they really tried to make the outsides look nice though....deceptive bastards..

The right thread is anywhere that you go until you correct your false accusation Larry. Now the guy who can't find the stones to admit when he is wrong is saying I can't find my own posterior. I'll bet you can find your posterior Larry. Easy for you since that's where your head is usually planted. Woof woof!

I thank those who've made positive contributions to the topic.

Those who lack the intelligence and/or education that would enable them to read the title of a topic, and who lack significant scientific training but yet who claim to be able to debunk "junk science" . . . well, they can be noisy, but about all one can do is laugh and ignore them.

Spanish artisanal shotguns (of all price points) can crop up in expect and unexpected places. Here is an example of a gun in an unexpected place:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=543927468

This gun looks like, and is described by the seller as, a gun made by Renato Gamba for Mauser in the 1990s. But a closer look at the water table and barrel flats tell a different story. This gun was built by Arrieta (maker’s mark “A.C.” in a circle), in 1976 (proof year code “U*1”). An attempt was made to buff off the Spanish proof and maker data. But that attempt was not entirely successful and enough of the original Spanish markings remain to identify the Spanish maker and proof year.

I came across the gun when I was scanning for interesting guns, and the engraving caught my eye as being typical top end Spanish work. That’s what made me stop and give the pictures of the gun a closer look.

Is this how you ignore me Larry???...



Wrong again Larry. I'm plenty intelligent and educated enough to know that my comments were not the topic of your thread. I said that earlier, but I'll reproduce it below for you in bold colored type since you still have reading comprehension problems. It can be tough to read when your head is planted up your posterior.



I'd say nice try Larry, but you're doing no better than Ed Good.

Also, I never said that I had the expertise to debunk the multitude of junk science on lead ammunition, even though I apparently have a lot more scientific training than you. I'm not doing any science on lead ammunition... just reading it, which is obviously more than you can do. I said I had the brains to critically analyze agenda driven crap that would never stand as science by anyone who knew what good science was. I gave you numerous examples, but you would rather tell lies about me and attempt to discredit me. All of your vast CIA Analyst and ballistics experience wasn't enough for you to explain how tiny dust sized particles of lead penetrated up to 2-3 FEET from the wound channel, according to Dr. William Cormatzer in his ND study, as but one example. And true to form, you can't man-up and admit being wrong, nor can you ignore me. What a pathetic joke.

Thread locked by request of originator.

Too bad certain individuals are stuck in one gear.

General Heads up:
I will not moderate the board. However, I will begin shutting users off for a period of time if they can't control themselves.